Harvard Adds Open Source to its MBA Curriculum

mjasay writes to tell us that Harvard has started teaching open source to its aspiring MBA candidates. In the latest issue of Harvard Business Review, Harvard presents business managers with a tough decision: To open source a successful (but increasingly vulnerable) product or guard its intellectual property zealously? As the case study's open source proponent suggests, "Open source is like a rising tide. You either float with it or drown."

Comments

Grey area

[ijustam]

From the case study description:

Eric Levin, the executive vice president of Techno Source, suggests that KMS take a middle path: license its software to third-party companies and add features to promote community building.

I, personally, hate it when this occurs. In my experience these companies never seem to get it right and usually end up tarnishing the entire brand. I hate to be so black-and-white, but the mix of company policies could just... be awful. If they licensed an add-on to a company who hired crap programmers that could tarnish the entire line.

Maybe I'm just bitter because then it seems like a game of "monkey in the middle" and they're tossing the code around and won't let me have it. Jerks.

Re:Grey area

[martin-boundary]

Maybe I'm just bitter because then it seems like a game of "monkey in the middle" and they're tossing the code around and won't let me have it. Jerks.

Fuck'em. Build your own. Package it for Debian. Laugh.

Re:Grey area

[that_itch_kid]

From the case study description:

Eric Levin, the executive vice president of Techno Source, suggests that KMS take a middle path: license its software to third-party companies and add features to promote community building.

I, personally, hate it when this occurs. In my experience these companies never seem to get it right and usually end up tarnishing the entire brand. I hate to be so black-and-white, but the mix of company policies could just... be awful. If they licensed an add-on to a company who hired crap programmers that could tarnish the entire line. Maybe I'm just bitter because then it seems like a game of "monkey in the middle" and they're tossing the code around and won't let me have it. Jerks. It's a prime example of a business trying to get the advantages of the open source development model without giving back to the community. I think you'd be quite right in saying this is Doing It Wrong.

Re:Grey area

[AdamInParadise]

I've found the case study to be pretty interesting. I also think that the answer from Eric Levin from Techno Source (an electronic toy maker) was perfectly in line with their current way of thinking and therefore disappointing. From my point of view, this middle path is just business as usual for electronic manufacturers: this is the standard business models for third-party accessories, from the iPod to the Wii. However, it should be noted that the middle path he was suggesting included a "certification" step: every piece of software or hardware would have to be vetted by KMS, so KMS is protected.

My solution: establish yourself as the gatekeeper of the "standards" while still working with other companies or individuals to extend them. Something like MIDI or the JCP. But the most important is to keep working on great products of your own. Dear Sun, you wrote the J2EE spec, where is your production-ready J2EE implementation?

What about Zimbra?

[amasiancrasian]

It's a prime example of a business trying to get the advantages of the open source development model without giving back to the community. I think you'd be quite right in saying this is Doing It Wrong.

I have to say I disagree. If you look at how Zimbra (open-source Microsoft® Exchange slaughterer) works, it really is a miracle that you get a first-grade email server with CalDav, Jabber, Wiki, self-updating and indexing search, with a MySQL-based message store connected by an OpenLDAP implementation (with capabilities of integrating with other directories) in an interface of commercial quality and usability, you will find that this is open-source wedded with commercial enterprise done right.

And I don't disagree with their business model. I think it is perfectly acceptable for them to ensure that commercial releases are tested thoroughly for QA, and that connectors integrating with commercial technologies such as Outlook or iSync stay commercial. I have no qualms about paying for an Outlook connector or an iSync connector. If you don't pay for the commercial edition, you're on your own like any open-source software. But at the very least, you get to run a mail server that is not crippled and probably a very formidable competitor to Exchange (which sadly can't run in Opera, Safari, or Firefox).

I don't see why you guys don't think this can work. These companies deserve to be rewarded for their hard work, and they are making money by adding value to a product, not crippling it. If you're an all open-source user any way, why would you need an iSync or an Outlook connector? Perhaps the only thing they could do better is change their license to GPL instead of MPL.

Oh, and I hope Microsoft doesn't buy Yahoo. Because your next upgrade path is Exchange, if Zimbra isn't released from a Microsoft merger or forked to a new project.

Re:What about Zimbra?

[deanlandolt]

I completely understand your sentiment, but I'm having a little trouble reconciling...

I don't disagree with their business model. I think it is perfectly acceptable for...connectors integrating with commercial technologies such as Outlook or iSync stay commercial ...and...

I hope Microsoft doesn't buy Yahoo. Because your next upgrade path is Exchange, if Zimbra isn't released from a Microsoft merger or forked to a new project. Because of the very strategy you advocate, it's impossible to fork the project with the connectors -- which is really the competitive pressure MS would want to squelch. Thus, irony ensues.

Grey area-Hypocrisy.

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's a prime example of a business trying to get the advantages of the open source development model without giving back to the community."

So everyone who downloads gives back to OSS? Glad to see no one's talking out both sides of their mouth.

it forgets about *using* software

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, it forgets about *using* the software and instead focuses on that fantasy vision about 'selling' software. The vast majority is developed only for in-house use.

Floating

[bazonic]

"Open source is like a rising tide. You either float with it or drown."

That's a great sound bite, but in reality, the big money-making technology is closed. Google, while being a great OSS advocate, will never open source what truly makes them money - their search algorithm. Apple, Adobe, SAP, Symantech, MS, etc, are not going to open their cash cows any time soon and are floating just fine.
 
OSS is not going away, but to say you have to open or drown is hyperbole. There is room, and reason, for both.

Re:this is just a case study

[Anonymous Coward]

This is just an HBR article, but there are a number of courses including Managing in the Information Age, Strategic Agility, Competing Through Business Models, Managing Networked Businesses, and Strategy and Technology that deal extensively with questions of open source vs. proprietary technology. In the past two years (I'm graduating this June) we've dealt with how Red Hat can make a viable business out of selling services, whether Linden Labs should open the API library for its servers, and a number of other cases. We've applied frameworks for when open, shared platforms produce the best results (like when a network is likely to be winner-take-all and no one wants to lose out) and when platforms need to be closed and proprietary (like when there are significant free-rider issues, and demand for highly differentiated features).

Open Source is not at all new to the HBS curriculum. Its merits and drawbacks are discussed extensively just like any other major business or technical issue facing general managers today.